I know this is hindsight, but why get two thirds of a management team at it, the weakest two thirds at that.

Theres a reason Steve Agnew is number 2 isn't there?...and we saw that today...absolutely classless, no threat, simple submission..Why let him have a go...His track record suggests he;'s a number 2 for a reason.

At least Lee Bullens side how showed some teeth...Its the same players, we had a slight recovery...This...Now?

Its put a blight on the new regime, it should have been left alone until Steve Bruce started...

Now most fans will be asking..

"How come Agnew is number 2 and Bullen has been shunted to wherever"...and so they should...We have seen the football under both in a microcosm of what they both bring to the table haven't we?

Its like Steve Bruce will turn up and find the f.ookin' kids have been wrecking the house...Should have left it to Bullen til Feb

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Agree, not as a reaction to today but before the appointment, it would’ve made more sense for them ALL to start 1 Feb, Bullen had d9ne a great job.

Bizarre, and I think most people thought so at the time.

We can never gauge "how many" ( "most people") but there were voices on here saying it. But generally people were relieved the chairman seemed to have made a good appointment and it got glossed over. It was clearly hard on Bullen, I think that was obvious, but who knew whether Aggers was any good at being a caretaker manager?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Can't understand it - had a full weeks training and not turned it around ! Get real.

Is it for Agnew to turn it around though? I watched today’s game in the Hull end with a city supporter and felt slightly embarrassed by how negative we played. It felt like Westwood was wasting time from the first time he touched the ball and Fletcher looked completely isolated.

As a team we seem to really struggle against high energy pressing opposition and we had no answer to Hull today.

It seems inconceivable that Hull were bottom of the table in October, because they looked a very polished side today, although we were so passive it just gave them more and more confidence as the game went on.

When you look at today’s performance I agree with the OP that it looks like a flawed decision to relegate Bullen. I just hope that by the time Bruce takes over it hasn’t worsened into a fire fighting situation for him.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think it was a brave decision, certainly a bit unusual, but still might prove beneficial. Just maybe it will set things up for Bruce to make an immediate impact, with a squad already starting to get used to his methods.

Most of what I've read on Owlstalk tonight sounds like a massive over-reaction.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bruce is the man we wanted. He has commitments which he insisted in sticking to and will have insisted his backroom team come in to start his work. We need a big clear out of the playing squad because it simply isn't goid enough.

One point I would like to make about all this is that I cannot understand why we have a change of management and delay the services of the Boss, but still bring in his understudies.

Seems peculiar to me.

Its one of many peculiar things that continue to happen at our club. This has to be a first that a club appoint a manager who is not gonna be there for a month yet give the job in the meantime to somebody who definetly would not have been given the managers job in the first place.